Alan Lewis strikes again

[Pfitzy]

In any case, I say the Welsh deserved to win because when they had the ball in hand they were far more positive than the KAH dribble we served up. Good on 'em.

 

[Lee Grant]

So Lee, you keep saying you're not on the band wagon. Fair enough, but who would you rather have seen as coach, and how do you think they might have done better? Not fishing, genuine question.

Just because I'm not on the Deans bandwagon doesn't mean to say that I think other coaches would have done better. It doesn't follow.

But I thought Deans would have done a better job, or seen to it that together with Williams and Foley, all 3 or any combination of them would have done a better job, with the elements of play that I was critical of.

For the record, people may recall that I said on this or the other forum, that I was miffed when we missed out on Gatland. I thought that we had no chance of getting Deans - how could we - and to lose out on Gatland was a blow. When we got Deans I couldn't believe our luck.

Deans will know more about the shortcomings of the Wallabies performances this year than any of us putting in our 10 cents in here.

He will know that some of those had to do with players not being available, some not being of the highest quality to start with, and some had to do with good players in their own right, not fitting in well enough with other good players. But he will also know that the Wallabies were very inconsistent and that he and his staff performed below par in addressing that perennial problem we have had since the Eales team.

It is unfair to compare the present team to that team; for it was a near great side. It is also unfair to say that coaches, like players, have to produce perfect games week in week out. But like players, Deans and his staff, will have to improve on their 2008 performances and that includes getting their players, of whatever standard they are, to play at a high level from week to week.

 

[naza]

I think you are all missing the point in this discussion. Lewis clearly thinks there is different rules depending on the colour of your jersey. Once was excusable, two times in a row and it looks like bias. Surely some independant viewers are also seeing it this way?

Lewis is a pathetic fucking cheat with a vendetta. fluffybunnys like him are the reason rugby will not grow. Why pay $100+ to go to see a game to watch a dickhead like that sabotage it ?

 

[Thomond78]

I don't think a tackle constitutes a ruck, ergo the Welsh player helped himself to the ball in general play. I think the rule sucks, but there you go.

A player cannot play the ball even at a tackle unless he joins or plays that ball from behind the last feet,- so he was offside in playing that ball.

Wrong; the tackler can. Law 15 (6) states:

(c) At a tackle or near to a tackle, other players who play the ball must do so from behind the ball and from behind the tackled player or the tackler closest to those players? goal-line.

Note; other players, not the tackler. It also clearly envisages that the tackler can be the player closest to the tackled player's goal-line. If you're the tackler, you can get up and contest straight away, with no requirement to come through the gate.

Just to make it clearer, law 15 (4) refers to the tackler, and 15 (4) (b) and (c) put no onus on him as to where he goes once he's up:

b) The tackler must immediately get up or move away from the tackled player and from the ball at once.


(c) The tackler must get up before playing the ball.

 

[Thomond78]

Interesting - the Welsh player was not offside, but we were penalised for going off our feet when the ball was essentially on the ground - allowing any player to dive on it without penalty. Its not a ruck after all...

Not entirely correct. Once a guy has gone to ground to get the ball, you can't go to ground on top of him. Law 14 (2).

http://planetrugby.com/Story/0,18259,3940_1863717,00.html

 

[rugbywhisperer]

I don't think a tackle constitutes a ruck, ergo the Welsh player helped himself to the ball in general play. I think the rule sucks, but there you go.

A player cannot play the ball even at a tackle unless he joins or plays that ball from behind the last feet,- so he was offside in playing that ball.

Wrong; the tackler can. Law 15 (6) states:

(c) At a tackle or near to a tackle, other players who play the ball must do so from behind the ball and from behind the tackled player or the tackler closest to those players? goal-line.

Note; other players, not the tackler. It also clearly envisages that the tackler can be the player closest to the tackled player's goal-line. If you're the tackler, you can get up and contest straight away, with no requirement to come through the gate.
Just to make it clearer, law 15 (4) refers to the tackler, and 15 (4) (b) and (c) put no onus on him as to where he goes once he's up:

b) The tackler must immediately get up or move away from the tackled player and from the ball at once.
(c) The tackler must get up before playing the ball.

You are correct in that sense but the other laws come ino effect and he must retire to an on side position before he can do anything else otherwise he will be penalised for either offside or foul play.
many of these things aren't written (eg. going to ground within 1 metre of a tackle or ruck) but they are in rulings and notes to referees which the general playing public don't get to see.

 

[cyclopath]

So Lee, you keep saying you're not on the band wagon. Fair enough, but who would you rather have seen as coach, and how do you think they might have done better? Not fishing, genuine question.

Just because I'm not on the Deans bandwagon doesn't mean to say that I think other coaches would have done better. It doesn't follow.

But I thought Deans would have done a better job, or seen to it that together with Williams and Foley, all 3 or any combination of them would have done a better job, with the elements of play that I was critical of.

For the record, people may recall that I said on this or the other forum, that I was miffed when we missed out on Gatland. I thought that we had no chance of getting Deans - how could we - and to lose out on Gatland was a blow. When we got Deans I couldn't believe our luck.

Deans will know more about the shortcomings of the Wallabies performances this year than any of us putting in our 10 cents in here.

He will know that some of those had to do with players not being available, some not being of the highest quality to start with, and some had to do with good players in their own right, not fitting in well enough with other good players. But he will also know that the Wallabies were very inconsistent and that he and his staff performed below par in addressing that perennial problem we have had since the Eales team.

It is unfair to compare the present team to that team; for it was a near great side. It is also unfair to say that coaches, like players, have to produce perfect games week in week out. But like players, Deans and his staff, will have to improve on their 2008 performances and that includes getting their players, of whatever standard they are, to play at a high level from week to week.

Thanks for the reply, Lee. I was not suggesting another team of coaches "would" have done better, but asking how you thought they "might", and indeed how Deans might have done better. You have answered that. Cheers.

 

[Scotty]

T78,

I think the incident in question here is one where another defender plays the ball, not the tackler, from an offside position. Ioane gets tackled by player A (possibly in the air), then player B (who was in front of the tackle) moves straight sideways to get involved in the ruck. I take it from your law quoting that is a pretty obvious offense, directly in front of Lewis, that wasn't picked up.

Actually more likely that it was picked up, but he didn't want to penalise the Welsh, instead waiting for an Australian penalty and to give Wales a chance to finish off the game.

 

[cyclopath]

T78,

I think the incident in question here is one where another defender plays the ball, not the tackler, from an offside position. Ioane gets tackled by player A (possibly in the air), then player B (who was in front of the tackle) moves straight sideways to get involved in the ruck. I take it from your law quoting that is a pretty obvious offense, directly in front of Lewis, that wasn't picked up.

Actually more likely that it was picked up, but he didn't want to penalise the Welsh, instead waiting for an Australian penalty and to give Wales a chance to finish off the game.

Spot on, Scotty. All this law-quoting is nice, but it completely missed the point. The Welsh guy was either offside, or in the side, depending on the laws in play. Either way, shouldn't have been there.
The second part should probably have a in case our in-house lawyer thinks it is defamatory!!

 

[Scotty]

What does a double wink make?

 

[Thomond78]

I don't think a tackle constitutes a ruck, ergo the Welsh player helped himself to the ball in general play. I think the rule sucks, but there you go.

A player cannot play the ball even at a tackle unless he joins or plays that ball from behind the last feet,- so he was offside in playing that ball.

Wrong; the tackler can. Law 15 (6) states:

(c) At a tackle or near to a tackle, other players who play the ball must do so from behind the ball and from behind the tackled player or the tackler closest to those players? goal-line.

Note; other players, not the tackler. It also clearly envisages that the tackler can be the player closest to the tackled player's goal-line. If you're the tackler, you can get up and contest straight away, with no requirement to come through the gate.
Just to make it clearer, law 15 (4) refers to the tackler, and 15 (4) (b) and (c) put no onus on him as to where he goes once he's up:

b) The tackler must immediately get up or move away from the tackled player and from the ball at once.
(c) The tackler must get up before playing the ball.

You are correct in that sense but the other laws come ino effect and he must retire to an on side position before he can do anything else otherwise he will be penalised for either offside or foul play.
many of these things aren't written (eg. going to ground within 1 metre of a tackle or ruck) but they are in rulings and notes to referees which the general playing public don't get to see.

No, they don't. Show me the laws that do.

And the second one is written. It's in Law 14. And you can see all the laws, rulings and directives on the IRB website.

If it's not part of the laws, are you really saying we need to have a situation where the referees are to make up laws according to what doesn't annoy Jiffy Davies, Muzza Mexted and whichever meathead Sky have on the Aussie tests?

 

[cyclopath]

Fair point, Thomo, but what has this to do with the incident in question? The tackled player was penalised for not releasing. Prior to him not releasing the Welsh 2nd man in came from the side in front of the tackler and played the ball, with at least one other Australian player there also. The tackler did nothing.
Did the 2nd player have rights? Should he have come through the gate? Is he offside? I'm not sure this has been answered, but I apologise for asking if it has.

 

[cyclopath]

Sorry, Lindommer has answered it on the Wales thread - thanks!

 

[rugbywhisperer]

I don't think a tackle constitutes a ruck, ergo the Welsh player helped himself to the ball in general play. I think the rule sucks, but there you go.

A player cannot play the ball even at a tackle unless he joins or plays that ball from behind the last feet,- so he was offside in playing that ball.

Wrong; the tackler can. Law 15 (6) states:

(c) At a tackle or near to a tackle, other players who play the ball must do so from behind the ball and from behind the tackled player or the tackler closest to those players? goal-line.

Note; other players, not the tackler. It also clearly envisages that the tackler can be the player closest to the tackled player's goal-line. If you're the tackler, you can get up and contest straight away, with no requirement to come through the gate.
Just to make it clearer, law 15 (4) refers to the tackler, and 15 (4) (b) and (c) put no onus on him as to where he goes once he's up:

b) The tackler must immediately get up or move away from the tackled player and from the ball at once.
(c) The tackler must get up before playing the ball.

You are correct in that sense but the other laws come ino effect and he must retire to an on side position before he can do anything else otherwise he will be penalised for either offside or foul play.
many of these things aren't written (eg. going to ground within 1 metre of a tackle or ruck) but they are in rulings and notes to referees which the general playing public don't get to see.

No, they don't. Show me the laws that do.
And the second one is written. It's in Law 14. And you can see all the laws, rulings and directives on the IRB website.
If it's not part of the laws, are you really saying we need to have a situation where the referees are to make up laws according to what doesn't annoy Jiffy Davies, Muzza Mexted and whichever meathead Sky have on the Aussie tests?

Thats not what I said. Much of the 'small print' is in rulings and available on the website but very few people actually research that.
Eg; How many people are aware that 1 metre is the accepted distance for not going to ground at the breakdown. It's not in the lawbook but it is in referees notes, discussions and bulletins and it up to referee judgement to determine that. One referee may allow a player going to ground beside a ruck another will not and in this there is NO consistency. I guess that agrees in part with your statement.
Another one is consequence. If an infringement generally does not impact on the play, it generally should not be acted on unless it is foul play - but again, it is a judgement call by the referee and that is where there is scope for subjectivity and hence disagreement, hence the call against Aust for sealing off the ball when it was clearly won and not being contested by the opposition. Pedantry at it's worst.
Refereeing is all about game management.

IMO Alan Lewis is not a good manager in that he confuses the players (does he really know what is going on at the scrum), is not consistent and IMO his judgement calls are not 'responsible' in that he is selective in his judgement of inconsequential calls.

Another problem with his game is that if you watch him he is rarely right at the breakdown when it occurs (he is just so slow around the paddock) - he is generally late and in a number of cases actually misses the first infringement and adjuciates on the second infringement which has generally resulted out of frustration by the players at the first infringement being either ignored or missed. In a proper world the 'assistant referees' should have picked these up but recently these people have been as incompetant as the referees and many infringements are not seen by them because they are looking elsewhere (who was checking the Welsh offside at the T/R/M/ all day - Lewis and the assistants all missed them either that or they completely over the top and rule on some petty infringement just to get on TV.

As for the Welsh player, just about everyone is right.
He was either offside, illegally playing the ball at the tackle or entering from the side, any way he should have been penalised. Take your pick of the three and as for the first Welsh try, why wasn't Lee Byrne penalised for not releasing when tackled. He actually got up with the ball, ran another 5 metres and offloaded while standing. Did all three officials miss that one too.

 

[Pfitzy]

Thomo - this is the penalty that Jones kicked right at the end.

The winger never came from behind the ball. The only reason we were penalised (for going off our feet at the tackle/ruck) is to prevent him waltzing off with the ball. But first offences first please Mr Lewis.